In Iowa, the one endorsement that all the presidential candidates want is Sen. Tom Harkin’s. At this point, he seems torn, not between candidates, but between speaking out or not.
“As we sit here right now, I honestly don’t know what I’m going to do,” Harkin told the New York Times. “I am being pulled in a couple of different ways. I may not endorse anyone. I may just let it all play out.”
All indications are that if he’s going to endorse anyone, it’s going to be Howard Dean, which may give Dean the boost he needs to solidify a victory in the caucuses.
There’s one thing I don’t quite get. Why would Harkin like Dean? Don’t get me wrong. I understand full well why Dean’s supporters like him and I can appreciate Harkin’s admiration for Dean’s fundraising prowess, army of volunteers, and passion.
But, that said, I’ve noticed that Dean has hammered his rivals for over a year on three specific congressional votes: the Iraq war resolution, No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act.
Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman all voted for each of these measures. As a result, Dean has argued that these four are “Bush-lite.” He condemns them as “Washington Democrats.” Dean references these votes when he accuses them of having been “co-opted by the agenda of George Bush.”
The problem is Tom Harkin has been a “Washington Democrat” for 20 years. And — you guessed it — Harkin voted the same way as Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman on the same three votes that Dean has wielded like a club.
Every time Dean dismisses “Washington Democrats” for their incompetence and cowardice, isn’t he also bashing Harkin? And if so, why in the world would Harkin endorse him?